Rust: upgrade rust-analyzer to 0.0.288#19524
Conversation
redsun82
force-pushed
the
redsun82/cargo-upgrade-3
branch
from
cc2e8ab to
28b504a
Compare
redsun82
changed the title
rust-analyzer to 0.0.279rust-analyzer to 0.0.281
geoffw0
left a comment
geoffw0
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
QL changes LGTM.
I've raised some questions on the DCA run, it looks like a net gain but there are some regressions in there that deserve discussing.
Extractor changes not reviewed.
rust/ql/test/library-tests/type-inference/type-inference.expected
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
redsun82
changed the title
rust-analyzer to 0.0.281rust-analyzer to 0.0.285
|
Looks good to me. The additional path resolution inconsistencies are a bit annoying though. Any idea where they come from? |
|
Judging by the second DCA run it looks like we're extracting significantly fewer files successfully as well - though the run did fail so I don't want to read too much into that. |
|
Don't know, there are still loads of unexpanded macros around :sigh: |
|
I've opened rust-lang/rust-analyzer#19931 (as I couldn't reopen rust-lang/rust-analyzer#19873). |
redsun82
changed the title
rust-analyzer to 0.0.285rust-analyzer to 0.0.287
|
oh well, there's a weird path resolution test error I'll need to look into on Monday :sigh: |
redsun82
changed the title
rust-analyzer to 0.0.287rust-analyzer to 0.0.288
redsun82
force-pushed
the
redsun82/cargo-upgrade-3
branch
from
5cf6b5c to
7edae1e
Compare
| {{#final}} | ||
| or | ||
| result = getImmediateChildOf{{name}}(e, index, partialAccessor) | ||
| index = min(int i | result = getImmediateChildOf{{name}}(e, i, partialAccessor) | i) |
| if err.span().anchor.file_id == semantics.hir_file_for(node.syntax()) { | ||
| let hir_file_id = semantics.hir_file_for(node.syntax()); | ||
| if Some(err.span().anchor.file_id.file_id()) | ||
| == hir_file_id.file_id().map(|f| f.file_id(semantics.db)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how did you figure out that you needed the file_id of the file_id of the file_id of file_id ? ;-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
turtles all the way down... 🤷
| .and_then(|s| s.expand_macro_call(mcall)) | ||
| { | ||
| self.emit_macro_expansion_parse_errors(mcall, &expanded); | ||
| self.emit_macro_expansion_parse_errors(mcall, &expanded.value); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does expanded also have an err field? If so, let log it, hopefully it'll provide some useful information of why an expansion failed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, the latest version of the PR does that
rust/ql/test/library-tests/dataflow/sources/InlineFlow.expected
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Don't forgot to commit empty expected files for |
aibaars
force-pushed
the
redsun82/cargo-upgrade-3
branch
from
190ab52 to
1823a22
Compare
aibaars
force-pushed
the
redsun82/cargo-upgrade-3
branch
from
1823a22 to
13b28e2
Compare
| | macro_expansion.rs:63:9:63:32 | include_str!... | | ||
| warnings | ||
| | included/included.rs:1:1:1:1 | semantic analyzer unavailable (not loaded as its own module, probably included by `!include`) | | ||
| | macro_expansion.rs:56:9:56:31 | macro expansion failed: could not resolve macro 'concat' | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does these changes mean we expand fewer macros?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it does unfortunately. It is likely that the cause is the same as for rust-lang/rust-analyzer#20037 . See also the DCA report for more insight in the impact.
|
Database build time, average 8 % speedup 🎉 |
4 participants
No description provided.